Improvised explosive devices (IEDs) present a danger to life and property. Currently, personnel that disarm IEDs utilize several different types of explosive disruption containers in order to separate the explosive components of the firing train, which is more commonly known in the art as “rendering safe” the device. Explosive disruption containers currently used are typically essentially cylindrical in shape (see US 2007/0209500, for example). They are also omnidirectional in functionality; that is, the cylindrical shape of the explosive disruption container forces a working fluid that surrounds the explosive inserted in the explosive disruption container to be explosively driven in a mostly outward, cylindrical, and uniform manner upon detonation. Omnidirectional disruption containers are primarily used as “general” disrupters to disrupt small and medium sized IEDs. They can also be used when it is advantageous that the kinetic energy of the container is transferred in a 360 degree arc. These types of targets may include clearance or general disruption of debris piles, culverts, dumpsters, or even the interior of a car.
Explosive disruption containers may also be directional. In a directional disruption container the explosive energy associated with a detonation is primarily concentrated in essentially only one direction (see, for example, U.S. Pat. No. 6,269,725). Directional disruption tools most commonly use a combination of explosive tamping and a geometric shape charge configuration in order to achieve the desired effects. Here, the explosive tamping is water, or other fluids, which slows down the explosive pressure on passive explosive fronts and causes a dampening of the explosive effects to create a path of least resistance along a primary axis. The greater velocities of fluids along the primary axis makes directional disruption containers advantageous for use against hardened targets such as suitcases or metal containers.
Many current disruption containers routinely require individuals to hand pack explosives within the container. This process can require separating small pieces of explosives from the original packaging. It also requires the operator to utilize a dowel or similar device to compress the explosives into dense layers within at least some portion of the explosive disruption tool to ensure continuity between the small separate pieces of the explosive. In addition to compressing the explosive, operators routinely utilize explosive boosters as a part of the explosive train in order to increase the energy needed to initiate the main charge.
This process of hand packing and compressing explosives within an explosive disruption container can lead to higher misfire rates when explosive disruption tools are fully assembled, charged, and stored prior to their use. Explosives are manufactured and delivered according to manufacturer specification (or military specification, a.k.a. “MILSPEC”) standards that relate to controlling the density and composition of the explosive. Consequently, upon removing the explosive from its original protective wrapping and hand packing the explosive within the container, the manufacturer specifications are no longer valid. The potential for introduction of foreign debris from the surrounding environment, the modification of the explosive's density, and the exposure to ultraviolet radiation are just some of the external factors that contribute to the explosive's degradation process.
The process of hand packing and assembling explosive disruption containers is not only labor intensive but also requires time. A single explosive disruption container may take several minutes to hand pack and assemble. Administrative time is also considerable. If the explosive disruption tools are constructed and stored to be ready for response operations, then personnel expend great efforts to account for withdrawing demolition materials from storage containers, setting explosive safety boundaries, creating safe working environments, and storing the pre-built tools for response operations. Administrative time is also spent tracking the amount of explosives used. For current explosive disruption containers, this requires the operator to weigh the amount of explosive prior to it being inserted and compressed within the container.
Utilizing hand packed explosive disruptor tools may also be costly. Once explosive disruption containers are assembled and hand packed, they are routinely stored for emergency response operations. Operators oftentimes rotate the inventory in a storage container due to degradation of the explosive and the plastic used for plastic explosive disruptor containers. A response team that must detonate numerous explosive disruption containers on a monthly basis and construct replacement explosive disruption containers can endure heavy costs after only a short time.
Standard demolition procedures exist for methods of priming, or inserting, blasting caps into plastic explosives. These procedures dictate the exact dimensions that a blasting cap must penetrate into the explosive to ensure the highest probability of detonation upon initiation. Standard demolition procedures also suggest that explosives should be dual primed; that is, two initiating systems should be inserted into the explosive. As stated in the Naval Sea Systems Command publication NAVSEA SWO60 “Dual priming explosives leads to fewer system misfires. This, in turn, leads to time saved during training and may save lives during battle.” Current disruption explosive tools do not take into account many of these standard demolition procedures.
The majority of explosives used within explosive disruption containers are toxic and contain large amounts of cyclotrimethlyenetrinitramine (“RDX”). The acute effects of RDX ingestion include staring into space, generalized seizures, lethargy, coma, muscular twitching, hyperreflexia, myalgia, headaches, vomiting, mild renal injury, and hematuria (see Kaplan, A S, Berghout C F, Peczenik A. Human intoxication from RDX. Arch Environmental Health 1965; 10: 877-83 and Stone W J, Paletta T L, Heimann E M, Bruce J I, Knepshield J H. Toxic Effects following ingestion of C-4 Plastic Explosive. Arch Intern Med 1969: 124: 726-30). Reducing the exposure of toxic compounds during the process of hand packing explosives into the explosive disruption containers remains an issue and adhering to strict procedures during the hand packing process may not always be feasible in wartime environments.
Therefore, there is a need to manufacture explosive disruption containers that take these considerations into account.
Accordingly, a solution is needed that will not only provide the operator the ability to assemble an explosive disruption container efficiently, but will also reduce the need to hand pack explosives within that container. Such an explosive disruption container would also be beneficial if it possessed performance characteristics that enabled it to be used against both general and directional targets. Performance characteristics include the velocity and kinetic energy of the projectile or fluid that is expelled outward from the explosive disruption container due to the detonation of the device.